User agent detail

SAMSUNG-SGH-i780/1.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows CE; IEMobile 7.7)
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
whichbrowser/parser
/tests/data/mobile/os-windowsmobile.yaml
Mobile Internet Explorer 6.0Windows Mobile 6.1 Samsungi780 Miragemobile:smartyes Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
IEMobile 7.0Trident 3.1WinCE Mobile Phoneyes0.05401 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
IEMobile 7.7closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
IE Mobile 7.7closeWindows SamsungSGH i780mobile-browseryescloseclose0.18002 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
IE Mobile 7.7Trident Windows CE SamsungSGH-i780smartphoneyes0.007 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Internet Explorer 6.0closeWindows CEclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
IE Mobile 7.7closeWindows CE SamsungSGH-i780closeclosecloseclose0.003 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
IE Mobile 7.7closeWindows CE closecloseclosecloseclose0.05601 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Internet Explorer Mobile Windows Samsungcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.41404 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Mobile Internet Explorer 6.0 Windows Mobile 6.1Samsungi780 Miragemobile:smartyescloseclose0.007 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Internet Explorer 6.0closeclosecloseclosesmartphoneclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
IE Mobile closeWindows Mobile SamsungSGH i780Feature Phoneyesyescloseclose0.015 Detail

About this comparison

The primary goal of this project is simple
I wanted to know which user agent parser is the most accurate in each part - device detection, bot detection and so on...

The secondary goal is to provide a source for all user agent parsers to improve their detection based on this results.

You can also improve this further, by suggesting ideas at ThaDafinser/UserAgentParserComparison

The comparison is based on the abstraction by ThaDafinser/UserAgentParser
Comparison created 2016-02-13 13:32:22 | by ThaDafinser